In this scenario, I change the donate button into a $4 default donation, and a choice to set your own. The result was similar to the typical interface.
Typical Interface
33% clicked donate
This is a typical choice that is seen in our normal checkout user flow in digital experiences. The drawback of this technique is that it might be hard to predict how much control the user wants to donate or their donation appetite.
Scenario 7
75.00% clicked donate
This mechanism uses the default effect to anchor the price of a donation to $4. People might feel that they are not putting enough effort if they go lower than that.
Strategy
What happens when we try giving personalised "default" options?
Comments
People felt bad when they didn't conform to the default "minimum". Here's what some people felt!
Person 1
They felt bad if they went lower than the default point.
Person 2
They think the shop owner doesn’t need donations.
Inspiration
You've probably seen this around you before.
Inspiration 0
MacDonald Kiosk
Measurements
After measuring, people felt that this interface was not socially acceptable based on a deception score of 2.55/3.5.
1
Question
How much of a risk was it to donate in this scenario?
2.222
Not Risky
Very Risky
2
Question
When using this interface, how often do you feel unsure or uncertain about the outcome that will be given to you?
2.223
Not Often
Very Often
3
Question
On a scale of 1-5, how pressuring was the experience in asking you to donate?
3.111
Not Pressuring
Pressuring
4
Question
On a scale of 1-5, how motivating was it to donate using this interface?
2.6667
Not Motivating
Motivating
Conclusion
Since people felt that this interface was not socially acceptable, we should probably not adopt this interface.
The Deceptive Interfaces Framework help designers create socially-acceptable interfaces using human biases, inspired from deception.
Made by Yuan Jie